In this system, anybody convicted of a violent crime is given a mandatory life sentence. This is not to say they will all end up serving life, there would still be parole hearings. For example, someone who under the old system would have been given 2 years for aggravated assault, would now get a life sentence and a parole hearing every 2 years.
Thus the owness of rehabilitation is on the convict. If they made an honest effort at rehabilitation they would still be set free. But now you can’t just be a badass in prison, serve your time and then be free to terrorise society once again.
I don’t think it would cause criminals to say “Well, I’m already going to be sentenced to life, might as well just kill the guy.” Because, for most cases you could still be out in the same amount of time as the old setencing system.
Why limit it to violent crime? Forgetting the fact that the definition of crime of violence is bizarre to say the least, why not do it for all crimes, under the logic you have put forward.
Crimes have a tariff, and once that tariff is paid, the person is released. To do otherwise would certainly be unconstitutional (well at least without a sham of a competency hearing), but more importantly goes against the fundamental principle that you are punished for things you have done, not for things we think you might do in the future. If someone misbehaves in prison, then charge them with that offense. Don’t deal with it this way.
Prisons are called rehabilitation or correctional facilitites for a reason, but the reason is not what goes on there. It’s what the public wants to believe goes on there.
IMO, the typical convict often as not is worse after the prison experience than before. I’m not suggesting doing away with prisons, only expressing my view of the way things are.
The idea of locking responding to a crime by locking the person who you think committed the crime in a small room doesn’t make sense, and there’s no proof that leaving them in the small room for longer periods of time prevents crime. As for the onus of responsibility being on the criminal, that wouldn’t help since societal problems, particularly poverty, are the root cause of crime.
So Joe Blow shot some other guy during an inner-city gang war. And let’s suppose that after several years locked in a small room, he decides to rehabilitate himself and convinces the parole board that he should go free. What happens then? He’s still a poor guy on the streets, with no marketable skills, and now the added stigma of being a convicted felon, and thus nowhere to go but back to the gang life.
What do you see as the advantage of your system? To me, you’re adding a new layer of subjectivity and bureaucracy for little obvious gain. What am I missing?
I don’t believe in mandatory sentences for ANYTHING. That’s not to say that some people don’t get off with overly light sentences, but the remedy is not to take away more judgement from the judges. There is never a good reason to avoid an analysis of context.
The advantage of this system is it becomes more focused on rehabilitation. A convict has to prove they are rehabilitated (at least to the degree that parole boards can ascertain). As far as adding a new layer of bureaucracy, sure there would be more overhead, but there is already a large amount of it present with parole boards. The only difference here is that there is no maximum time limit. You can’t just fail every hearing and get released anyway.
villa
I can see your point that there would be controversy over the definition of a violent criminal. Why not for all crimes? Practicality. You have to balance the amount of overhead with benefit to society. I would disagree that this is punishing convicts for future crimes. It is just handing out a very harsh punishment for all violent crimes. One that can be significantly shortened with the convict’s cooperation, which is already done to a lesser degree.
I am aware that we would need improve rehabilitation programs.
Keep in mind that any felon in this system can the serve the same amount of time as in the old system as long as they are cooperative.
I think the judges could still have considerable freedom in this method by determining such things as parole hearing intervals, rehabilitation programs and prisons they are sent too. I am not talking about mandatory minimum sentences where the judges of less leeway.
MGibson, personally I like the idea that if some steroid mutant beats me up they can face a lifetime in prison if they don’t shape up. But this could be open to a debate on where you draw the line at violent crimes.
To me, what a felon owes society is to become a law abiding citizen, not the amount license plates they pound out. Until they are reformed, their debt is unpaid.
Well, imprisoning and convicting a philosophical concept is always difficult, har har.
Considering that my post started with the word “nope”, I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that I do agree with the OP. Let me clarify. If someone is so violent that the public can only be protected by haivng them locked away, then so be it. But most criminals, and even most violent criminals are not pathologically violent, but only committed a violent crime for some reason.
Self-defense, or what they at least percieved as self defense.
Under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Triggered by an emotionally extreme situation.
Imprisonment, the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Why should being locked up for a long time increase a person’s desire to be a peaceful and productive member of society? If you lock a dog in cage, feed it and care for it inadequatly, and deny it any chance for emotional bonding it will become less social rather than more. Why should a person treated the same way react any differently. And why should we pursue the response to crime that costs the maximum possible in taxpayer money.
From the days of Hammurabi to the forefathers of the United States there has been a belief that for justice to prevail the punishment must fit the crime. Sentencing someone to life in prison for breaking my nose is a disproportionate amount of punishment. Therefore it is a bad idea.
Nope. You’d have a prison population of about 5-10 million, and each would require about $30,000 a year to support them, so an extra $60 billion a year would be needed. And think of all the destruction it would do to families for people to never get to see their family members again since they got in a fight 20 years ago. It would do the same thing drugs laws did, it would ruin respect for the law and see the police as the bad guys instead of the protectors of society.
Plus the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. I am for putting away serial criminals (a small minority of criminals commit a good deal of the crimes in the US), but people who get in fights once or twice are not real dangers to society.
No. I’ll ask the same question I asked in another thread when jail time was proposed for smokers: Is this just? Doesn’t sound like it’s even remotely close to justice for me.
So someone gets a life sentence for pushing someone, though with the possibility of parole, while you can plunder the pension fund of a Fortune 500 company and get a determinate sentence.
How is that in any way relating the severity of the offense to the penalty, which is surely a fundamental principle of justice?
Can’t we just put everyone over 18 in prison and then let them prove why they are worthy of being let into regular society? That would catch a ton of criminals before they even committed a crime.
Now, were I a violent criminal, why should I leave my victims alive? Should any survive, they would only testify against me - and the punishment is now little worse for murder than strong-arm robbery.
You actually have to be convicted of a crime before you are sent to prison.
Lets draw the line at felonies then. Misdemeanor assault would not land you a life sentence. That will take care of your simple fisticuffs.
villa here the effective penalty is not the life sentence, it is the time for parole, the type of prison, and the requirements for rehabilitation. These would be commensurate with the crime.
Here is how I see it working out:
Convict (A): old sentence:2 years assault medium security, New sentence: life medium security, with parole hearings starting at 2 years.
Convict (B): old sentence: 15 years manslaughter maximum security, New sentence: life maximum security, with parole hearings starting at 15 years.
Not only will (A) be eligible for parole much earlier than (B), but rehabilitation for (A) would be simpler. (A) might be required to satisfactorily pass one year of counselling whereas (B) would be required to pass 7 years of counselling. Or something like that.
I would say the above system will still provide the incentive to not escalate one’s crimes AmbushBug. The lesser the crime, the lesser and easier the amount of time you serve before parole and the easier it is to prove rehabilitation.
Sure, somebody not willing to rehabilitate themselves can stay in prison for a long time. But if they choose prison over rehabilitation, are they really the type of person you want free in society? As far as the cost, it would be more expensive, but recidivism also carries the additional costs of new trials, re-incarceration and human suffering. Reduction in the amount of recidivism it may offset these new costs.